While your 100% correct.. companies like Facebook require capital investment ( Wealthy People ) to take a risk on an idea which ends up employing thousands of people.

Yes, increasing the demand for goods and services would do the trick as well, but increasing investment in start up has the chance to create the next google, facebookbook, linkedIn, etc...

It's a balanced approach.

Click to expand...

I agree mcgraw, but if we added up all the jobs increased demand creates vs. start ups (of which most fail), my guess is that increased demand jobs would dwarf start-up created jobs...but I could be wrong.

I agree mcgraw, but if we added up all the jobs increased demand creates vs. start ups (of which most fail), my guess is that increased demand jobs would dwarf start-up created jobs...but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

How do you plan to increase demand? That sounds like central planning to me...

Who is going to decide which products should be increased in demand? who get's to decide which products have enough demand?

Your talking about economic communism.

The reason why the focus is on investment is becuase its a 100% free market approach to growing jobs. No one but free people with money can decide which business ideas they want to focus on.

And most start ups don't fail, they just don't become HUGE successes like facebook and google, etc...

The government should not be in the business of dictating demand or supply... let the market figure it out based on what people want... not what we think is best for their needs.

How do you plan to increase demand? That sounds like central planning to me...

Who is going to decide which products should be increased in demand? who get's to decide which products have enough demand?

Your talking about economic communism.

The reason why the focus is on investment is becuase its a 100% free market approach to growing jobs. No one but free people with money can decide which business ideas they want to focus on.

And most start ups don't fail, they just don't become HUGE successes like facebook and google, etc...

The government should not be in the business of dictating demand or supply... let the market figure it out based on what people want... not what we think is best for their needs.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% mcgraw and have always said the economy is not the responsibility of gov't to "Fix" because it can't be fixed. It has to find it's own balance before a solid foundation is formed for prosperity.

The only way to increase demand is for "Disposalbe income" to increase. And the only way demand can/will increase is for the middle class to experience increases their total disposable income. and that means more people working.

Some good points here HD...how would you propose increasing taxes will be used to create permanent jobs?

Click to expand...

OT:

First and foremost.

I think, as a nation we need to pivot, and pivot HARD.

1. Increase taxes on corporations who export jobs to 90% (Tax Breaks for those who keep them home) Eliminate tax loopholes.
2. Eliminate taxes on anything manufactured in the United States.
3. Use a fixed portion of revenue increases strictly to pay down the debt.
4. increase education spending, infrastructure and invest in renewable energy. This is the jobs creator, this is the BIG PIVOT. Fossil fuels pollute, they give our $$ to terrorists, and rogue governments. If we lead the world in the next generation of energy production, we run the next 100 years.
5. FLAT TAX....If companies want to be treated like humans, they should be taxed like us too.
6. Eliminate subsidies for profitable industries.
7. Raise taxes on millionaires to pre Reagan levels. This creates a two pronged revenue solution. a) REinvestment by corporate ownership in their industry. 2) revenue for paying down the debt, education, military etc.
8. Medicare for all. Private coverage will still be an option as it is in most nations. Use out of work 'adjusters' to become the medicare fraud inspectors, saving us billions a year.

and with the low rate, and even lower rate of offshore taxes, they have managed to cut 10,000 jobs.
and the remedy to get americans working agin by the right is to cut taxes MORE?

insanity

Click to expand...

You're talking about corporate taxes now while the recent talk of "taxing the rich" or the "top 2%" is an personal income tax. Two seemingly similar strategies that can actually have very different effects.

Illegally? Or is Cisco just playing by the rules set up by the U.S. Government?

Then who should we direct our anger towards?

FWIW, I believe closing both corporate and personal income tax loop holes in favor of a very transparent system. Get the gub'mint out of "incentivizing" behavior.

You're talking about corporate taxes now while the recent talk of "taxing the rich" or the "top 2%" is an personal income tax. Two seemingly similar strategies that can actually have very different effects.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the term JOB CREATORS. Somehow the taxes are getting lower and lower for THEM and their companies, yet jobs are not being created. According to the right, CEO's and companies are the only things that can create jobs.

I can pretty much say with 100% certainty that Cisco's CEO paid less in taxes as a percentage than I did. Thats disgusting.

Cisco is cutting 3,000 jobs in the US yeah lets punish Cisco, that will produce more jobs.

If you make it tough for business and you punish the successful you will get less of both.

Click to expand...

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

because low CEO taxes, low corporate taxes, offshore HQs have managed to make 1 dude very wealthy, and kick 10,000 people to the curb.

math....

this isnt an isolated incident, its an epedemic. And it has become the new "American Way". It sucks.

If Cisco's CEO was taxed at a 50% level, he would be reinvesting in his company, instead of earning a salary that probably most people in your town put together will not earn over a decade. MOre people would be working, generating more revenue, moving the american machine.

If Cisco's CEO was taxed at a 50% level, he would be reinvesting in his company, instead of earning a salary that probably most people in your town put together will not earn over a decade. MOre people would be working, generating more revenue, moving the american machine.

Click to expand...

What you fail to realize is that that's actually pretty much exactly what happens. Regular income gets taxed at around 40%, but capital gains get taxed at around 15%. So what happens is:

- Wealthy CEO invests his money in a company
- Jobs are created, people go to work
- Time passes
- CEO takes some long term capital gains as income, paying 15%
- People like you whine and complain about how low CEO's taxes are

What you fail to realize is that that's actually pretty much exactly what happens. Regular income gets taxed at around 40%, but capital gains get taxed at around 15%. So what happens is:

- Wealthy CEO invests his money in a company
- Jobs are created, people go to work
- Time passes
- CEO takes some long term capital gains as income, paying 15%
- People like you whine and complain about how low CEO's taxes are

What you fail to realize is that that's actually pretty much exactly what happens. Regular income gets taxed at around 40%, but capital gains get taxed at around 15%. So what happens is:

- Wealthy CEO invests his money in a company
- Jobs are created, people go to work
- Time passes
- CEO takes some long term capital gains as income, paying 15%
- People like you whine and complain about how low CEO's taxes are

Click to expand...

Actually, you're wrong, at least in the case of Cisco. John Chambers gets hoards of stock options as part of his compensation. He may invest some of his money Cisco, but by and large his primary holdings are in the form of stock options. He may very well invest some of his money in Cisco and other companies, as most of us do, but if he spent more of that money it would probably create more jobs, since spending has direct effect on employment while investments go towards all sorts of things, including new acquisitions. At any rate, certainly capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate. Basically, the way it's set up now, I believe, is that capital gains (long) for the poor is 0% and for everyone else it's 15%. If anything, we should lower capital gains for the middle class, who are generally in crisis in terms of retirement, and raise it for the wealthy, in order to promote investment by the middle class.